In rendering decisions on content moderation actions, the Facebook Oversight Board must scrutinize whether restrictions on speech pass muster under international human rights law. This analysis involves an assessment of Facebook’s policies governing content moderation on the company’s platforms (its “Community Standards”). Indeed, any Board decision affirming the removal of content or an account suspension must necessarily include a finding that the relevant Community Standards comport with the right to freedom of expression as set forth by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Yet, as this paper explains, the substance and presentation of these Standards raise important questions about their adherence to the legality requirement under Article 19.
The Facebook Oversight Board’s Missed Opportunity to Promote Gender Inclusivity*
This working paper discusses the Board’s human rights treatment of Case No. 2020-004-IG-UA, generally referred to as the “Breast Cancer Symptoms and Nudity Case.” The Board’s decision in this case centered on freedom of expression, as provided by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In doing so, the decision missed opportunities to highlight and delve into other human rights standards, including those calling for Facebook to be more gender responsive and inclusive.
Lost in Translation: How the Facebook Oversight Board’s Limited Language Capabilities Undermine Human Rights*
The Facebook Oversight Board purports to be accessible to and capable of meaningfully evaluating cases referred by users across the globe. Yet the Board’s limited language capabilities, even compared to those of the Facebook platform, undermine equitable access to the Board and obstruct its ability to gauge the full context of content under review.
ONLINE EVENT: The Decisions of Facebook’s Oversight Board – Implications for the Global South, particularly in Latin America
The Inter-American Dialogue, the International Justice Clinic at the University of California, Irvine School of Law and Columbia Global Freedom of Expression at Columbia University are pleased to present a panel discussion to understand the main aspects of Facebook’s Oversight Board, its decisions so far and their impact in the Global South, particularly in Latin America. Professors David Kaye and Mary Hansel serve as panelists.
The Facebook Oversight Board’s Decision on COVID Misinformation and Conspicuous Omission of the Right to Health*
The pandemic has created waves of information and misinformation on digital platforms that threaten individual and collective rights to health. Yet the Facebook Oversight Board’s decision confronting COVID-related health misinformation (the “French COVID Misinformation Case”) failed to address this crucial right. This omission is consistent with a broader trend of the Board prioritizing the right to freedom of expression at the expense of economic, cultural and social rights — which is inconsistent with authoritative human rights standards.
Riesenfeld Symposium, Professor Kaye Moderates a Panel on Social Media and Content Moderation
Professor David Kaye moderated a panel on Social Media and Content Moderation during the Riesenfeld Symposium organized by the Berkeley Journal of International Law. Panelists included Dr. Safiya Noble, Associate Professor at UCLA, Co-Founder and Co-Director at UCLA Center for
Amicus Briefs and Expert Testimony
[Originally published here]
Professor David Kaye submits comment to the Oversight Board
Professor David Kaye, in his personal capacity, submitted a letter in response to the Oversight Board’s call for public comments as it evaluates Facebook’s decision to suspend indefinitely the accounts of former US President Donald J. Trump.
A Conversation with the Oversight Board – Facebook’s Trump Ban and the Future of Online Speech
Professor David Kaye participated in a conversation with Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Oversight Board Co-Chair and former Prime Minister of Denmark; Dex Hunter-Torricke, Oversight Board Head of Communications; and Steve Feldstein, Carnegie Endowment senior fellow for Democracy, Conflict, and Governance. More information
UCI Law Clinics Assist Former Child Slaves in U.S. Supreme Court*
Students in the University of California, Irvine School of Law (UCI Law) Civil Rights Litigation, International Human Rights Litigation and International Justice Clinics are part of the litigation team representing former child slaves before the U.S. Supreme Court in Doe v Nestle USA and Cargill, Nos 19-416 & 453. Civil Rights Litigation Clinic Director Paul Hoffman will argue these consolidated matters in the Supreme Court on December 1, 2020.